Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the outset let me give members a brief overview of some terms that apply in respect of prisoners. One hears about parole, temporary release and remission, but the three terms are different.

Remission is an entitlement that virtually all prisoners have to have one quarter of their sentence deducted. It does not apply to life sentences. If I were given a sentence of four years, I am entitled to have remission of approximately one quarter. The prison makes an application for remission to the Minister and it is generally granted. It is dependent on good behaviour but in general we can say that under the prison rules, virtually all prisoners get remission of one quarter of their sentence.

Temporary release is slightly different from remission. Temporary release applies if a prisoner is unwell and needs some treatment or there are compassionate grounds to let the prisoner out. Sometimes a prisoner can be let out if a relative is unwell or if the prisoner has day-to-day temporary release, the prisoner may have managed to get a job. That is infrequent but it can apply. The law in respect of temporary release is dealt with in the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003, which involves an amendment of the Criminal Justice Act 1960.

Temporary release and remission already exist, but the purpose of the Parole Bill 2016 is to put on a statutory basis the operation of parole in Ireland. Parole applies at present on a non-statutory basis to people who have been convicted and sentenced to a sentence of eight years or more. It is only for serious criminals, people who have been sentenced to a long time in jail. At present our parole system does not operate on a statutory basis. It operates on an informal basis run ultimately by the Minister for Justice and Equality but on the basis of advice and recommendations that she receives from the Parole Board. The Parole Board is a non-statutory board.

The objective of the Bill is fourfold: to establish an independent Parole Board on a statutory basis; to give that independent statutory board responsibility for the decision to grant parole, thereby taking it from the Minister for Justice and Equality; to establish on a statutory basis the clear criteria for the granting of parole, so people can look at it and understand how parole operates; and to give victims of crime a say in the process, because much of the time, we hear that victims of crime do not have a say when it comes to parole. The Bill does not give them a veto but it does give them an involvement in the process.

The reason I think the current system is unsatisfactory is because it is not based on statute; one cannot see how it operates and ultimately it is controlled by the Minister for Justice and Equality. Sometimes there will be political pressures on a Minister not to give parole to a particular individual because it could be met with a great deal of opposition in the press and it could be politically difficult for the Minister. Sometimes there may be pressures on Ministers to give parole to people because of political affiliations they have with them. It is better to take the issue out of politics and put it on an independent, transparent and statutory basis that sets out how and when a person is granted parole.

Let me take the members briefly through the Bill as I know members will have read it thoroughly. I will be waiting for questions, particularly from Deputy Wallace, who I know was working on the Bill last night.

At present much of the legislation is relatively similar. It is setting up a quango, which is one criticism that members can make, however at present we have a Parole Board. We need a Parole Board so the Bill, when enacted, will put the Parole Board on a statutory basis. Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, are the standard provisions one finds in any legislation dealing with regulations, expenses, establishment and interpretation.

In section 5, I set out the nature of parole and the purpose of it. Under the terms of the Bill, parole gives individuals an entitlement to apply for a reduction in their sentences if they meet certain criteria. The important thing to note is that, at present, and I retain this in section 5(2), parole is only available for people who have a sentence of eight years or more. Members may want to table amendments subsequently in respect of that but part of the reason is that if people who got a four-year sentence were up for parole, the system would become very over-burdened with work. When one considers that remission is available, we really need to concentrate on the most serious offences. On the basis of workload it only really applies to people who have a sentence of eight years or more.

In Part 2, I deal with the Parole Board. Section 6 establishes the board and section 7 sets out its functions. Its main functions are: to convene panels to consider persons for parole; direct the release of persons; set out the conditions so that if they were to be released, they would be released subject to some monitoring; and to consider what conditions should apply in respect of parole.

Section 8 sets out the membership of the board. Such sections seem to arouse most interest. I know I can be legitimately criticised. People will say, "Here is a lawyer trying to make this very complicated." One of the criticism made of the Bill by the Tánaiste on Second Stage was that it could make the process very legalistic. However, in Britain and elsewhere in the world, cases are now being taken by individuals who claim they have an entitlement to parole. We have a process at present whereby people can apply for parole. They go to a Parole Board. They are entitled to challenge that. We need to have a mechanism in place whereby prisoners and the public can look at the procedures and say, "This is how one would apply." There are bodies who look at these issues which are independent of politicians. They make a decision and if one does not like it, one can go elsewhere.

The membership of the board will comprise: a chairman; at least four people who are appointed through the Public Appointments Service, PAS; a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist; a psychologist; a representative of the Irish Prison Service; a member of the Garda Síochána; a probation or welfare officer; a representative of the Irish Penal Reform Trust; and other persons who have developed a knowledge and experience of the supervision of prisoners.

Four members of the board will be nominated through an applications process under the Public Appointments Service but I think there is a benefit in asking organisations such as the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland to nominate a psychiatrist to go on the board, the Psychological Society of Ireland to be the body to nominate the psychologist and also the Irish Prison Service to nominate the appropriate prison officer. Generally if one asks bodies such as those I have listed, they will put forward reasonable people who have a good understanding as opposed, and I may be criticised for saying this, to the people who apply who may not necessarily be the best.

Section 9 sets out the terms of office. A member can only serve a four-year term and then another four-year term, a total of two four-year terms. Section 10 deals with the chairperson. Section 11 sets out what I call the panel convenors.

Section 11 sets out the role of the panel convenors who will convene panels of between three and five members to decide on parole applications submitted by prisoners. There is a great deal of work involved here. Many prisoners are going to be applying for parole. It will not be an easy job in which one hears the odd application now and again.

Section 12 deals with staff. The Parole Board has to be staffed properly. If one talks to those involved with the board at present, they will say they are concerned about the need to have sufficient staff numbers. They would prefer to be able to select their own staff.

Section 13 relates to parole panels. Section 13(2) states that such a panel "shall consist of 3 or 5 members" with a chairperson among that number. Each panel will decide whether to recommend a prisoner for parole.

Section 14 sets out the powers of parole panels. I envisage that parole panels will have two functions. I will explain it simply. Under the system I am proposing, there will be a review or a hearing in each case. Most parole applications will be dealt with by review, which will involve looking through documents like reports from doctors and probation officers to see whether the person is doing well and making a decision on whether he or she is entitled to parole. A prisoner will be entitled to a hearing in some circumstances and on certain grounds after he or she has been refused parole.

One of the powers of the parole panel, as set out in section 14, is worth noting. Section 14(8), on page 13, provides that a parole panel, "may conduct a hearing as it thinks appropriate". There does not have to be a hearing all the time. Most of these cases will be dealt with by means of review. This will involve looking at the file. Sometimes there will be a hearing. The panel will determine who can attend and give evidence at such hearings. It will also be able to, "impose limits on what a person may talk about". We do not want hearings to turn into long-running sagas. We have to be careful to ensure people do not use hearings as opportunities to have a go at other people. The parole panel will be in control of that.

It is important to note that section 14(11), on the bottom of page 13, provides that, "the Board may receive written submissions from any victim of the person whose parole is being considered", if necessary, "allow any such victim to appear and make oral submissions at a hearing for the purpose of assisting the Board to reach a decision", and, "allow for the representation of any such victim". There are circumstances in which the Parole Board may allow the victim of the prisoner to attend. This will not be mandatory or obligatory. There are conflicting rights here. There are the rights of the prisoner and the interests of the victim of the crime. The latter cannot be a veto on the former. I think it is in the public interest to have this mechanism available.

Section 15 deals specifically with reviews. Section 15(1) states that, "a review may involve consideration of such information, documents, memoranda [....] but shall not involve oral testimony or oral representation". It is a straightforward paper review. Section 15(4) provides that, "where the decision by a panel is to decline to make a parole order in respect of a person, the decision shall specify a date". Section 15(3) sets out that a person who has been refused parole, "shall be entitled to a hearing", as opposed to a review.

Section 16 clarifies that hearings, "shall be conducted in such manner as the parole panel thinks fit". Section 16(2) requires each decision of a hearing panel to be given to the candidate for parole, the Garda Commissioner, the Prison Service and the Minister. Section 16(3) states that, "for the purposes of a hearing, a person whose parole is being considered is entitled to appear [and to] attend while any other person is making submissions, provided that the person whose parole is being considered may not be present at the hearing when any victim is present". That will keep the victim and the person whose parole is being considered out of the same room at the same time. I am not assuming that victims do not want those responsible for offences against them to get out because that is not always the case.

Section 17 requires the Parole Board to report on its activities.

Part 3 deals with the parole process. Section 18 sets out the guiding principles the board should take into account, including the, "recommendations of the sentencing judge", "the nature and gravity of the offence", and, "the degree of responsibility of the person whose parole is being considered".

Section 19 sets out the criteria for parole. Rehabilitation is an important part of this. Consideration must be given to the impact of the offence. Section 19(2) provides that various factors, including, "the conduct of the person while in custody", "any recommendations of the court", "the nature and gravity of the offence", and, "the potential threat" posed by the offender, must be considered by the Parole Board when consideration is being given to parole.

I think section 20 is interesting because it relates to eligibility for parole. It provides that, "every person serving a sentence of eight years or greater period shall be eligible for parole having served a period of one-half of such sentence or after seven years, whichever is the lesser". That is the way it is at present. Section 20(2), which states that, "a person serving a life sentence shall not be eligible for parole until that person has served a minimum period of eight years", also reflects the current position. That is the law as it is applied by the Parole Board at present.

My own view is that an eight-year period is too short. The Parole Board will say it is pointless considering somebody who has been convicted of murder for parole after eight years because he or she will not get it. A tariff of approximately 15 years currently applies to a conviction for murder, which involves the intentional killing of a person. I know Deputy Wallace thinks prison does not work. We need to think about the punishment that should be imposed on a person who kills another person. Is there a suggestion that we should not put the killer in prison? I think there has to be a punishment. That is probably a bigger question than the one we are discussing today. I suggest this section of the Bill should be amended on Committee Stage to reflect the reality that somebody convicted of murder is not considered for parole for between ten and 12 years.

Section 21 deals with consideration for parole. I intend to change this in a Committee Stage amendment.

Section 22 relates to parole orders. Legal proof is required to get a person out. A parole order is a document that will state that a person is being granted parole and will permit a prison warden or governor to release that person.

Monitoring and compliance provisions are set out in section 23. If there is concern about the impact of the release of a person on parole, perhaps because he or she will be a threat to somebody else, it will be possible under this section to impose conditions on the person being released.

Section 24 sets out how parole orders may be varied. Parole involves release on licence. It can be revoked. If a person who has been given parole starts committing other offences or breaching his or her parole conditions, his or her parole order may be varied under this section.

Section 25 provides for the revocation of parole orders.

Section 26 is a technical section relating to warrants. Obviously, there is a need to be able to issue a warrant in order to return to jail a person who has breached a parole order.

Section 27 sets out the general administrative rules for preparing for reviews and hearings and how those reviews are to be considered.

Section 28 provides for privilege under the Defamation Act 2009 in respect of documents generated for the parole process.

I drafted amendments after this Bill was passed on Second Stage. I do not know if I have submitted them. I appreciate the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in advance of Committee Stage, which cannot take place until the Government decides to pass a money message in respect of it. This issue, which arises because the legislation involves a charge on the Government, has arisen previously. If that happens again on this occasion, we will see how it goes. I am happy to answer any questions my colleagues might have.